Supreme Court Didn’t Give ‘Green Light for Death Squads’—Attorney

Attorney Jonathan Turley wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Saturday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity didn’t give the “green light for death squads,” referencing what he sees as hyperbolic claims made by “the left and the media.”

In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Court ruled that former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, but not for unofficial acts. The decision came more than nine weeks after former President Donald Trump, the presumed 2024 GOP presidential nominee, brought his presidential immunity case before the justices.

In an opinion piece for The Hill, titled, “Hold off the death squads: Highly misleading coverage of SCOTUS immunity decision,” published on Saturday, Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, highlighted some recent coverage of the Court’s decision.

On Monday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reacted to the ruling on air and said: “This is a death squad ruling. This is a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything. Absolutely anything, and never be held accountable, not only when you are president, but forever.”

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden said at the White House on Monday that “for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”

Turley, a self-described Libertarian who has testified in the first and second impeachments of Trump, wrote in his op-ed, “In fairness to critics, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent gave credence to their hyperbolic theories.”

Justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who are the three liberal-leaning judges on the Court, dissented to the majority’s opinion.

Sotomayor wrote in the ruling: “The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

“The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims,” Turley wrote in his article. “Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged ‘private scheme with private actors’ to create alternative slates of electors ‘cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.’ If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.”

The former president and his allies are alleged to have created and submitted fraudulent certificates to falsely claim Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states to disrupt Biden’s election victory.

Turley added on Saturday: “That is a far cry from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a slate of fake electors but could order a slew of political assassinations finds little support in the actual opinion.”

The legal analyst told Newsweek via email on Sunday: “As laid out in the opinion, the Court drew the lines on immunity consistently with centuries of past practices and rulings. Presidents are not immune from prosecution. The only absolute immunity is found in core presidential functions like pardon powers. The rest is either unprotected (unofficial or personal acts) or only presumptively protected (other official functions).

“The inquiries that will now take place in New York, Florida, and Washington put the lie to the overwrought predictions that we are somehow replacing the Madisonian Democracy with a John Wick Republic,” Turley said, referring to Trump’s criminal indictments, all of which he has pleaded not guilty to.

Newsweek has reached out to Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, via email for comment. It also reached out to the White House for comment and MSNBC for comment from Maddow via email.

In an attempt to get Trump’s federal election interference indictment thrown out, the former president’s legal team argued before the Court that he is immune from prosecution because his alleged actions surrounding the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, were protected under presidential immunity.

On that fateful day, a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., in a failed attempt to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s 2020 election victory following claims from Trump that the election was stolen via widespread voter fraud. There is no evidence to support such claims.

In August 2023, Trump was indicted on four felony counts in a case brought on by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith: Conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Trump has claimed the case is politically motivated against him.

Update 7/7/24, 10:29 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Turley.